mharr wrote:Neo-liberal, as in "a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism?" From an outside US perspective, I don't immediately see that in their generalised request to take tools for mowing down entire crowds off the streets (via increased regulation) and increase funding for mental healthcare. It's not like an outright ban on private firearms was gonna fly. Half-measures and politicized nonsense are what democracy looks like when it's working.

We've got a bit of a nomenclature problem in describing political factions.

Most people agree we can loosely divide the Democratic Party into two wings, and that those wings are represented by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the '16 primary season.

The Clinton wing is variously described as centrist, moderate, liberal, progressive, establishment, New Democrat, or neoliberal, depending on who's talking.

The Sanders wing is described as liberal, progressive, left-wing, leftist, socialist, Social Democrat, and New Deal Democrat. (These lists are, of course, not exhaustive. And of course once you veer off into Fox News territory, it all gets distorted and every Democrat is a liberal progressive leftist socialist commie, those words are all used interchangeably, and nothing means anything anymore.)

All of these terms have their problems; none is perfect. I generally share your sentiment that "neoliberal" is the wrong word here and should be reserved for its specific, original economic meaning. However, various other terms to describe the political bent of these proposals are all ambiguous and potentially misleading too. And most of the politicians proposing this type of gun control policy are neoliberals. So it's "neoliberal policy" in that it's a policy held by neoliberals, if not a policy that is itself neoliberal.

Basically, I agree that "neoliberal" isn't exactly the right word here, but I also don't think there is an exactly right word, since nobody really quite agrees on the lexicon and these terms mean different things to different people.

There's a tricky other side to the reasoning with mental illness. If the best position regardless of feasibility is "nobody gets to buy or keep guns except maybe non-mass-murdery hunting-related ones", I understand that "mentally ill people don't get to buy or keep guns" is discriminatory, but it is still a fair deal better than "guns for everyone, yeehaw!". I don't think anyone should have guns, so on that level, fighting for the rights of mentally ill people to get guns doesn't make sense, as much as I support the destigmatization of mental illness in general.

It's like, I have a pro-gun-rights friend who says she can't buy guns anymore because she has a (non-gun) suicide attempt on her record. She once asked me if I'd support her rights to buy guns, and it took some doing to make sure she understood that while I did not, it was only because I would not support anyone's else's right to buy guns either, not even my own, if I had one.

François wrote:There's a tricky other side to the reasoning with mental illness. If the best position regardless of feasibility is "nobody gets to buy or keep guns except maybe non-mass-murdery hunting-related ones", I understand that "mentally ill people don't get to buy or keep guns" is discriminatory, but it is still a fair deal better than "guns for everyone, yeehaw!". I don't think anyone should have guns, so on that level, fighting for the rights of mentally ill people to get guns doesn't make sense, as much as I support the destigmatization of mental illness in general.

It's like, I have a pro-gun-rights friend who says she can't buy guns anymore because she has a (non-gun) suicide attempt on her record. She once asked me if I'd support her rights to buy guns, and it took some doing to make sure she understood that while I did not, it was only because I would not support anyone's else's right to buy guns either, not even my own, if I had one.

This isn't "mentally ill people don't get to buy or keep guns" this is "mentally ill people cannot trust their doctors because everybody is now a mandatory reporter, and so will not be able to tell them things they need to be able to tell them" and "people who need medical help will be afraid to seek out doctors in the first place", with a healthy dose of "cops are further empowered and everywhere as though this would DECREASE gun violence". It's a disaster that will get people killed.

That does sound like the part that's been injected by NRA sabotage agents, doesn't it? Still, this movement is trying to begin a conversation, not force through homebrew policy by weight of numbers. It's not the Brexit referendum. Maybe they'd be open to some kind of reasoned debate and compromise?

It's probably better strategy for this stage to outlast the present administration in any case.

Edit: NRA sabotage agents at the Guardian, apparently. Interesting. I remember when those guys were journalists.

What's the odds on those mental health reporting measures even being constitutional anyway? At a guess I'd imagine there'd be a way to make them legal, but maybe it would actually be subject to a serious challenge?

Mongrel wrote:What's the odds on those mental health reporting measures even being constitutional anyway? At a guess I'd imagine there'd be a way to make them legal, but maybe it would actually be subject to a serious challenge?

That's what I'm asking? I'm mean, I'd hazard a guess I know more of the US Constitution than many random rednecks or trolls, but I'm hardly an expert in American constitutional law.

Sure, I can't think of one off the top of my head, but it seems like it's not IMPOSSIBLE that some aspect of the scheme (which incorporates many different elements, including an apparent lack of due process or other challenge measures for something meant to strip a citizen's 2nd amendment rights) could *conceivably* fail a constitutional challenge?

Mongrel wrote:That's what I'm asking? I'm mean, I'd hazard a guess I know more of the US Constitution than many random rednecks or trolls, but I'm hardly an expert in American constitutional law.

Medical privacy is governed by statute (HIPAA) and can be amended by the same. More importantly, mental health professionals are already obligated to contact the police when their patients appear to be a threat to others.

People are already disallowed from purchasing guns if they're ever involuntarily committed or if the court declares them incompetent, and mental health professionals by-and-large are already required to report patients who they believe are a danger to harm others (44 states, mostly mandatory, others at professional discretion)

Edit: While an expanded mental-health push is bound to be abused in some form or another, the bigger problem that's getting pushback (from people who care) is that suggestion to mandatorily increase police involvement with people on the mental health list, which is pretty much going to do 0 for gun violence prevention at the cost of getting even more disabled folk killed by police.

http://butthatsanothershow.tumblr.com/post/172261960303 wrote:As far as I can tell, these “demands” for expanding police presence and criminalizing mental health do not stem from the actual official March for Our Lives movement.

These proposals come from an article from The Guardian which allowed 10 students from the MSD high school newspaper, Eagle Eye, to write an article for the website. (article can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/com ... s-gun-laws) These students are not the ones who have been leading the march or the ones who have been seen speaking out to the media recently.

The March for Our Lives petition/website does not include these suggestions.

The actual March for Our Lives petition demands only include an assault weapons ban, prohibiting high capacity magazines and closing the loophole in background checks. The official petition can be found here: https://marchforourlivespetition.com/ The March for Our Lives website includes funding for gun violence research and intervention and eliminating restrictions on the ATF (which includes things like digitizing gun sales records and instituting safety requirements, did you know guns shown to have manufacturing defects are not required to issue a recall, even if people are killed because of it?) Information found here: https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/

How We Save Lives1. Fund gun violence research and gun violence prevention/intervention programs.We must provide the CDC with dedicated funding to research gun violence as a public health issue. Even the original sponsor of the law that limits the CDC’s ability to do this research, former Congressman Jay Dickey, said that it was a mistake. More than 100 medical organizations have called on Congress to restore funding. Furthermore, we believe that gun violence and prevention community work is essential to reducing gun violence and these groups should be funded fully.

2. Eliminate absurd restrictions on ATF.The gun industry has operated mostly unchecked for far too long. ATF, the only federal agency with jurisdiction to regulate the gun industry, has been operating with one hand tied behind its back – unable to even digitize records of gun sales – or require gun dealers to conduct annual inventory checks to make sure they aren’t missing any guns. The ATF needs to become a modern agency, one capable of keeping receipts and efficiently regulating this massive industry.

3. Universal background checks.It is too easy to obtain a firearm. Right now, federal law only requires you to obtain a background check if you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer. We must close the private sale loophole and make sure all sales undergo a background check.

4. High-capacity magazine ban.High-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds serve only one purpose – to allow someone to shoot as many bullets as possible, in the shortest amount of time. These magazines are devastating and need to be banned.

5. Limit firing power on the streets.Weapons of war have no place in our communities. Our nation requires a comprehensive assault weapons ban that prohibits the future production and sale of these weapons and provides a solution for dealing with those assault weapons that are already owned, such as a buyback program or registration. Limiting high-powered weapons to the military has worked elsewhere to eliminate the opportunity for mass shootings.

EDIT: Suspect now confirmed dead - a woman, this time. Several people wounded, but no one killed except the shooter. Daily Beast is claiming it was a relationship conflict, but there's no confirmation or source.

Apparently it wasn't a relationship thing either. She definitely had mental issues of some kind, and was especially fixated on YouTube's shady and questionable demonitization practices (which are in fact a real thing... but generally people don't go on shooting rampages about it).

"Awww, look at this puppy. Sarah Anderson has been running a shelter for lost dogs for the last 3 years, ever since she found an abandoned dog on the side of the road one spring day in April."

"I was driving and I just saw this dog, hurt, alone, obviously abandoned by someone in the middle of nowhere," Sarah says, brushing her hair away from her eyes in front of her no-kill shelter. In the background, several dogs romp happily as a man armed with an AR-15 guns down several screaming, pleading children. "I couldn't just leave him like that, so I took him into the car and took him home. Later, it occurred to me that this wasn't just a single dog, a single problem. It was a problem all over."

*B-roll of dogs playing. Gunshots can be heard in the background*

"So I decided that the best thing to do was to try and make a real difference in the community. I got some money I had been saving and opened up The Shelter For Lost Dogs, and boy let me tell you, the community response has been enormous. I get tons of people in here every day, adopting dogs. And I think we're not only making a difference in the lives of the dogs, but also in the lives of the people who adopt them."